Dev Conf and EGM

[Mrs H.]

Anyone going? (apart from me and Becks)

[PorkyFatBoy]

Nope. Too busy control hanging.

[Pingu]

Sorry, I'm moving in this weekend.
Trying to persaude the king penguin to go though...

[John Morris]

The later sessions of the day will focus on Membership and Funding.

There will be (I understand) three papers presented. Ranald Macdonald's contribution (as Convenor of the BOF working group) is available on the BOF website.

If you would like a copy of my paper on Membership and Funding (a response to Ranald's BOF website article) please email me.

Note that I'll be away from home from noon on Friday to Saturday night - so if you want a copy for the EGM - and haven't emailed me by noon on Friday - ask Mrs H.

Dick Towler will also (I understand) be contributing a paper to the Membership/Funding session. I don't know how you get hold of this.

It may be that all three papers will be copied and issued on the day - but you'll need to be a speed reader to digest all of them in the session...

[King Penguin]

Difficult for me to go and chauffeur offspring to uni and chauffeur other offspring to junior training weekend all at the same time

[RJ]

Do I understand correctly that the membership debate is back to square one and a half again?!!

Anyone going to say how the EGM and Development Conference went?

[PorkyFatBoy]

Oh Come on! What happened? - the suspense is killing me.

(I see Ranald has resigned, although the letter was dated Friday, so not as a direct result of the meeting.)

[Mrs H.]

I really don't have time to say now so here's half my club mag editorial I'm just working on before I have to dash out to give 40 girl guides an orienteering taster - although I don't know why i'm bothering as someone will surelu give me a pain in the neck for doing this

Now last Saturday I went to the BOF development conference and EGM. I enjoyed the morning workshops – attending one on communication and another on club development – it was good to meet so many like-minded people. But the EGM was another matter

In true BOF tradition it was chaotic and confusing and possibly unconstitutional. The original proposal for a temporary rise in subscription - supported by the statement that £40,000 of next year’s income would be needed to develop the work of the Regional Development Officers – which was circulated in advance and on which proxy votes were taken – was amended. The RDO bill was removed from the equation and the proposed increase in subs approximately halved. It was then decided to vote on the original proposal first – as this was what the proxy votes were cast on – and that was defeated. A vote on the amendment was then taken – including the proxy votes – even though some proxy voters had not nominated someone at the meeting to make a decision on any amendments for them (so their votes had been cast on a different set figures). I understand it is usual to vote on amendments first before voting on the original proposal. The amendment was carried by the narrowest of margins and after a couple of minor matters the EGM was closed.

There then ensued a debate on membership proposals and a directive vote on what we should do next – it seemed that most people thought everyone should become a member of BOF but as to who and how this should be paid for there was no clear picture. I did point out that the only fair and equitably way of paying for BOF’s services was a taxation at the point of consumption – in other words by Levy – but that was not on the table. Only after I got home did I see an e-mail from Ken Davidson of the Scottish Orienteering Association which concluded with the paragraph:” In the current membership proposals I do not see any admission that the BOF bureaucracy has mushroomed out of control. Nowhere do I see any proposals for savings to be made. Cutting ones coat according to ones cloth is a good maxim. If the object of the new membership proposals is simply to milk the membership for as much as BOF dare there may soon be few members left to milk. And perhaps I'll be one of the ones who will fall by the wayside.”

Wouldn’t it be nice if the sport was just about orienteering!
Lynden

[PorkyFatBoy]

Thanks, Mrs H.

Over the weekend I was handed the entire archives of our club and in amongst the 1989 papers were membership proposals that looked awfully similar to those proposed (except for the RDO bit). Plus ca change....

[awk]

On Saturday, I was walking over Pen-y-Ghent (in fantastic conditions) with children from my school on an outdoor pursuits weekend, which included some orienteering. Just confirms (in my smugness) that the job change (from BOF staff to teacher) was the best move I could have made......

[Guest]

Suse's report is pretty similar

This should have been a pretty straightforward but it couldn't be straightforward could it? On the day we were told that the sentence in the supporting statement for Proposal 1 (an increase in BOF membership fees) had been changed, removing the information that £40,000 would be used next year to fund development work. Also, there was an amendment from John Dalton and Hilary Palmer proposing a less steep increase of fees. There was debate about whether to vote on the amendment first or second and whether proxy votes could be counted as the changes might result in a different view being taken. After a fair bit of help from the floor as to correct procedure we finally voted against the original high increase but in favour of the lower increase. (At this point a 75% vote in favour was required.)
The second proposal was to change the need for a 75% vote in favour to a simple majority for certain items and this first went down too, by 99 to 33 with 4 abstentions. (There were 76 proxy votes, 9 of which were given to the Chairman to vote as he saw fit.) It was then decided that abstentions didn't count and so the vote was carried. As it was exactly 75% a recount was requested just to make sure. So proposal 2 was carried and Proposal 3, which was simply to sort out a typo, was also carried.
We then moved on to the debate on the Membership Proposals. Ranald commented that he had originally got involved with Council 6 years ago when he was asked to look into the matter. It was fortunate that we were not required to take a significant vote on this either as, in addition to the BOF working party's proposal, there were 2 others, which had not been circulated. Dick Towler and John Morris photocopied their own and circulated them, everyone else presumably having been able to obtain a copy from the internet, but I don't know how many people managed to read and digest them. Basically, John's was a "Hang on a minute we haven't worked out what we want BOF to do or how much money we want BOF to spend on it, so let's see how the figures work out first" proposal, the "Do nothing yet" option. Dick's recognised that there was a need to gather numbers but that there are a lot of occasional orienteers who don't orienteer often enough for them to appreciate the benefits of BOF activities. He therefore had kept the two tier system of membership but introduced the concept of cheap associate membership rather than club only. So this was also a compulsory BOF membership scheme but not forcing everyone to pay for goods and services they don't want.

[HOC OLITE]

Looks like protocol has gone down the drain again. BOF are asking for volunteers for vice chairman, not for nominations, also they've stated that they have approached Neil Cameroon, (as often happens but if he is willing to stand surely they should be seeking a nomination and a seconder. Surely they have a constitution, and thus need to follow protocol. I wouldn't have thought that vice chairman can be co-opted, although he might be able to until the next AGM. Surely they need some support in the area of elementary constitutional procedure. If the officers don't know then a procedure should be documanted to follow. Usually the secretary is the person who researches this and prepares the officers for the meeting.

Hocolite

[Simon]

There is the Articles of Association and they are available from this page.

The relevant article is 11.2(c)

In the event of a casual vacancy in respect of such offices, the Council may appoint another eligible person to act for an appropriate period but not beyond the next Annual General Meeting.

[Guest]

Surely they have a constitution, and thus need to follow protocol. I wouldn't have thought that vice chairman can be co-opted, although he might be able to until the next AGM.

So in other words you don't actually know. So how about doing some basic research before you start slagging off people, when you don't know whether what they are doing is right or wrong.

Its quite likely that it is you that needs some education in "constitutional procedure" and there is indeed a documented procedure that is being followed.

In the meantime just shut up about things that you know nothing about.

[Mrs H.]

Ha ha ha - guest was obviously not at the egm - there was no evidence of procedures being followed as the chairman was asking for advice from the floor as to how he should proceed! As suse reported

After a fair bit of help from the floor as to correct procedure

Congrats Hocolite - looks like you've got yourself a squelcher You are of course right it can't be correct to make an announcement like that - it should have been along the lines that a vancancy has occured and nominations are invited - if none are forthcoming then a co-option may be necessary until the next agm - no names should have been mentioned at this stage because it's effectively telling people not to bother stepping forward as BOF already have a replacement lined up. It is guest who is showing his ignorance - but then that's nothing new is it?